Tony Kurdzuk/The Star-LedgerView from above the Senate Chamber dais in this January 2010 file photo.

TRENTON — Despite an effort to make it easier to for parents to skip vaccinations for their children, a Senate committee yesterday nudged the state in the opposite direction, approving a bill that would establish stricter guidelines before allowing exemptions on religious grounds.

The move came a week after an Assembly panel refused to vote on a measure a that would have allowed parents to claim they conscientiously objected to vaccinating their children.

The Senate bill, approved by a vote of 6-to-1 with one abstention, would have required parents or students over the age of 18 to submit a letter to their schools explaining how the state’s vaccine requirements conflicted with the "bona fide religious tenets or practices of the student."

"By adding the words ‘bona fide,’ we certainly would be suggesting that you should not use the religious exemption just as an excuse,’" said state Sen. Loretta Weinberg (D-Bergen), who sponsored the bill (S2625). "The overall aim of this bill is to get children immunized."

The number of parents claiming religious exemptions for their children has increased sharply over the last four years, to 3,865 in the 2010-2011 school year from 1,644 in the 2005-06.

New Jersey’s immunization rate among children fell from 76 percent to 62 percent in 2007, Pediatricians and public health professionals noted that the Centers for Disease Contrtol and Prevention found that the state had the nation’s highest autism rate that year. It was also the year New Jersey became the first state to mandate a flu shot for children from 6 months to 59 months who attended a child care center or preschool.

Fran Gallagher, executive director of the New Jersey chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics, said many doctors had told her about parents seeking exemptions on religious grounds, then choosing which vaccinations to skip.

"I think it has been abused to the point where it puts the public at risk," Gallagher said.

But critics argued that the bill was unconstitutional. Assemblywoman Charlotte Vandervalk (R-Bergen) cited an opinion from the non-partisan Office of Legislative Service, which said that said any law in which the government determines whether someone’s beliefs are legitimate is likely to be ruled unconstitutional.

"When you say ‘bona fide,’ it draws to mind that someone could challenge what is bona fide, what is not bona fide. And that is unconstitutional," she said.

Vandervalk is the sponsor of the bill (A243) that has languished in the Assembly for seven years It would have allowed parents to refuse have their children vaccinated. It finally got a hearing last week, but was blocked by Assemblyman Herb Conaway (D-Burlington), chairman of the Health and Senior Services Committee, who refused to hold a vote.

During yesterday’s Senate committee hearing, Weinberg said those granting the exemptions would have no more authority than they currently have to accept or deny religious exemption claims.

Renee Steinhagen, executive director of the public interest law group New Jersey Appleseed, contended there was nothing wrong with requiring parents to demonstrate that their religious convictions were sincere.

But she added that it would be unconstitutional for the state to determine whether a particular religion was "bona fide."

"Sincere does not mean that you have to belong to an established religion," she said.